@shop-a-holic wrote:

For those of us who have escaped some of the socialist nations to come to America, this is really shocking.

I bet there's a great story behind that, shopaholic!

I'm thinking that Millennials were not taught that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for it. Frankly, it shocks the hell out of me that it's something even considered -- especially when it's promoted by someone who earned over a million dollars in 2016.

@KateH wrote:

Well which is the well ran socialist country? I do not see anything beyond China, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, some hybrids like Bulgaria, Nicaragua, Angola, Albania, etc. None of the Scandinavian countries have socialism and if we applied some of the immigrant and welfare policies they have, people would scream.

That is exactly my point. When liberals talk about things that, from your example, Scandinavian countries do, conservatives scream SOCIALISM!!!! And then start pointing to examples like Venezuela as being the same. Either Scandinavian countries are socialist or the policies liberals talk about aren't. You can't have it both ways.

@bgriffin wrote:

That is exactly my point. When liberals talk about things that, from your example, Scandinavian countries do, conservatives scream SOCIALISM!!!! And then start pointing to examples like Venezuela as being the same. Either Scandinavian countries are socialist or the policies liberals talk about aren't. You can't have it both ways.

I think you misunderstand, as many people do, what socialism is and what the Scandinavian countries do. Socialism requires that the state owns the means of wealth and then distributes the wealth equally to people. That's what people like AOC want to do. The Scandinavian countries are market economies that just help those in need and provide services to their citizens, in exchange for high taxes by all. Another interesting point is that the Scandinavian countries have homogeneous population and until the large migrant waves, they were willing to assist their brother/sister citizens. But now they complain and actually have started becoming more strict with immigration and reducing benefits for all. Forbes had a good article last year explaining the Scandinavian economies and how they differ from socialism. [www.forbes.com]

@KateH
I believe that @bgriffin is trying to point out is that the "socialist" of the Bernie Sanders variety are "Democratic Socialists," which is very different than the regimes that conservatives often name in their arguments. Democratic Socialists believe in a democratic government, but one that does take ownership of production - public v. the private ownership of capitalism. "Socialism" itself is different, as it is not a philosophy that includes democratic rule. It, in fact, opposes it.

So, when Sanders is referred to as a "Socialist," the term "Democratic Socialist" is far more accurate. If you listen to him speak, you'll hear very quickly that is his absolutely not in favor of the autocratic governments found in China, Russia, etc. Of course, the term "socialist" is frequently used with the Marxist slant in right wing rhetoric as a way to demonize him and other very liberal personalities.

What both democrats and republicans generally fail to realize is that they are all not only in favor of democratic governance, but all favor capitalism (no, I do not include true Democratic Socialists here). However, republicans and democrats also favor some policies that lead away from pure capitalism and the free market and towards socialism. For instance, very few folks believe that we should not have: Minimum wage, overtime pay, social security and child labor laws. Most also believe that there should be police, fire, and other emergency services paid for with taxes for the common good. Most of these services have not always existed in this country nor are they a part of a "pure capitalist" system. I would suggest that very, very few folks believe in pure capitalism. (How many folks would actually vote to remove child labor laws?)

The fact of the matter is, we all (in this country) believe if some ideas that have socialist leanings and/or origins. Consider: Social security, Medicare (for elderly folks), Fire Departments, National Parks Services, Public Schools, Labor Laws. What generally separates us political is the level at which we believe these things are funded. Of course, the vast majority of folks on each "side" of the discussion, have not concept of the levels at which they believe various programs or governmental functions should be funded. They are even less likely to know the difference between "Keynsian" and "Free Market" economics.. They stick with what they will bother understand: Taglines such as "It's for the children," "No new taxes," "Starve the beast," etc.

After a 6 hour drive I was going to reply to this but it seems MFJ made my point better than I would have.

This is still a republic.

What about the effect of erosion over time? Here is what I mean. At first, we might have Medicare for All. After that, there might be Medicare for All except the oldest old, the sickest old, the sickest young, and the babies who legally can be denied care and will be made to die. The next step could be Medicare for a Fe, because by that time, the system will will be bankrupt due to chronic under-funding which has resulted from fewer births/ fewer babies who survive into adulthood. In addition, many people will have lost their will to live, and many others will have lost their ability to live. We know from our studies of the long history of the world that it is easier to weaken a nation from within and end up with a smaller number of persons to manage or control than it is to invade with troops and wage a war in hopes of gaining control.

Consider the internationalization of concepts. Globalization has splattered all kinds of ideas onto the world's canvas. Who now knows what? Who is applying what information to which situations, and what are the results?

I do not suggest that any one individual has anything like this in mind. I believe that it can happen simply because people are not learning lessons of history and are not provided with opportunities to pose and answer questions about current events, past events, and likely trajectories into the future.

People who fear anything like what I have posted or who fear any other undesirable outcomes might just know something about history and about human nature. The world's history is filled with events that might shed light on what could go wrong if the US implements too many ideas from too many places. imho, it is enough to acknowledge the vast variety and number of ideas. It is not necessary to implement more and more and more of them until the United States has been transformed completely into something that it is unrelated to is foundations.

I don't agree with many ideas popular in liberal circles, but there is nothing wrong with adapting what other nations do if it is a good idea. (Yes, I recognize that different folks have different thoughts on what a "good idea" might be. That's why we vote.) I would also suggest that sometimes it's good to "move on" from our foundations. After all, when the nation was founded, the economy of the South was based on slavery.

You cite "globalization" and concern about the rate of birth fatalities. Yet, we have the highest rate of birth mortality in the industrialized world. Perhaps we should be trying to learn what other nations are doing better in this respect? Would this be "erosion" or would it be advancement?

As for your fear regarding "Medicare for all." Do you not realize that, as things stood before the ACA, we had record numbers of folks who were uninsured and not receiving medical attention because the simply could not afford it? Yes, medical costs have continued to rise. We have a medical care problem in this country. Looking to see what other nations have found works only makes sense. Though I do have concerns about a single-payer system, I have to acknowledge that it is the only idea really being considered by either part right now.

I would prefer that we not live and act in "fear" of change. Rather, we would always be working to build a "more perfect union." Sometimes we do and will continue to err. However, I would suggest that, overall, we have progressed in the correct direction over the last 243 years.

Then why "completely transform" it, as Sanders and several of the others regularly call for?

@MFJohnston wrote:

However, I would suggest that, overall, we have progressed in the correct direction over the last 243 years.

I've never suggested that I agree with Sanders. I'm just saying that we need to be open to (not afraid of) change when we think we can improve our nation. Sometimes we'll be right. Sometimes wrong.

I may be the only one that truly likes Medicare as it stands now. Being on it and having amazing Doctors, some who have left private practice to join AARP Medicare due to the rise in their Ins., have become my best friends.
Having a health Ins. plan for all will cause waiting, perhaps never seeing the same Doctor and many other problems. Why not have two different systems, one for those having paid in and worked all their life, and another for those not having paid taxes. I am talking like a layman, I realize that, but would hate to see our Medicare system lose the good part of it due to over population. I don't see history playing into it, and I am literally afraid of Socialism. I am not a history buff, don't see how Slavery fits into this, I am talking from my personal experience.
Sanders is a good man trying to implement his ideas, and like any human, some will work, others ideas will not.
The young are for him, but the old have experience and see this as opening a door for bigger problems.

@Irene_L.A.
My "slavery" comment was in response to a comment that we did not want to move away from our "foundations' as a nation. I am merely saying that many of the "truths" of 1776 would be considered undesirable now and that we have done well as a nation to move away form them and change over time.

Again, I am not convinced that "Medicare for all" or any "single payer system" is ideal. However, to oppose it simply because it is a "change" is not rational. We do have health care issues in this country. We would do well, as a nation, to actually seek out solutions instead of spending all our efforts shooting down ideas that are presented. I would very much like to see the GOP come up with a proposal to *do* something.

Here is an idea that has been floating around for awhile: make people responsible for their own health. To a certain degree, or to a certain number of billions of bucks, people choose their health outcomes. If they had to pay for their health costs, they might make different choices. That would involve many changes. If insurance were only for catastrophic situations and a limited number of chronic conditions, what would people do?

Anyway, in my sleepiness I thought I heard a blurb about Biden. Was/is he considering a run?

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Anyway, in my sleepiness I thought I heard a blurb about Biden. Was/is he considering a run?

Did you mean this guy? [www.youtube.com]

IMHO they need to run someone who does not have the #PedoJoe, #HeelsUp, #Fauxcahontas, etc tags. To win, they need to pull back more to the center with someone like Howard Dean. Or, if they want to go more left, then Kirsten Gillibrand or Dianne Feinstein.

People provide their own insurance: That's the system we have had. That's the one that allowed (before the ACA) over 15% of the population to not have health care (according to the Census Bureau.). That's the system that saw premiums skyrocket and coverage plummet while insurance and pharmaceutical companies raked in record profits. Though, for many things, I agree that letting the markets set the tone makes a lot of sense. However, when folks are being denied life-saving medications because the prices are jacked up for the sake of profiteering, we have an issue.

My wife needs epinephrine periodically due to very severe allergies. In one year, we went from paying a $15 co-pay for an Epi-pen to needing to pay over $400 for a two-pack - they weren't sold individually. The thing about this, is that Epi-pens have a shelf-life of two years. She needs to fresh epinephrine on hand or, should somebody walk past her with a peanut butter sandwich, she could die. (Yes, she has experienced anaphylactic shock from such a mild exposure.) She needs one pen in the car, one in her purse and one in a safe spot at home. $800 is a lot of money for most folks. However, "affording" it was not a choice. Yes, that particular issue was partially remedied by Congress. However, there are other drugs with the same issues. Pus, our insurance premiums went up significantly that year.

It was the jacking up of the epinephrine prices that made it clear to me: We need some sort of regulation/fix/answer with our health insurance. Leaving things as they were before the ACA was not an option - unless, of course, we are happy to just let folks who make less than six figures die because they can't afford basic health care?

I think the real issue with our health care are the incredible costs. I see them separate from the insurance costs. I think insurance premiums and co-insurance percentages rise because of rising underlying costs. If the costs were reined in, insurance prices would level out. I think some of the hospital bills and medication prices are simply outrageous. There are drugs that literally cost $1,000 per pill. I recently needed to have an ambulatory test procedure done. Between the facility bill, doctor's bill who interpreted the results and the test itself, my insurance was billed $4,500.

I think if we had some regulations on the cost of various procedures and treatments, where hospitals had to account for why they are billing what they are, and also cap what their profits are allowed to be, we could see some stabilization in the system. Changing the health insurance system seems like approaching the problem from the opposite end. If underlying health care costs were reduced, insurance costs would naturally work themselves out.

Underlying the cost of services is the use of services. For how many people is it possible to change their utilization of medical services? How many will be able to change how they think about their health, themselves, and their lives? If enough people can make this change, then utilization should decrease substantially and some costs could be eliminated.
(And... here will be the argument that the costs must be spread out and the costs for the remaining users will skyrocket and people will die... )

Shop-et, you've hit the nail on the head. My neighbor has a MFCC license and gets paid over $100/hr from the state to "treat" people who basically need to just quit eating junk food and start walking. There are people who truly need mental health services, but most just need to quit being so self-centered and make some friends (that's HIS take, and I agree.) Last visit to the E/R, there were several drug-seekers clogging up the queue (none of whom had obviously paid for insurance). I'm currently waiting until the first available appointment in June to be seen for what is probably [something that needs to be taken care of] because people go to the doctor for the stupidest things when it's "free" (one of my friends who is a military doctor said gynecological appointments go up by a factor of ten when men are deployed - draw your own conclusion there.)

There are some fixes available: I'd like to see co-pays implemented in the military (socialized) healthcare system. Maybe then people would attempt to care for minor things themselves. The Internet is free and MayoClinic has a lot of information. Our E/R recently went to non-narcotic pain relief; most of the drug seekers take a bus across the county line and now go to another hospital -- they have yet to make the switch.

Personal responsibility seems to be a foreign concept for many.

Pain is a huge situation for many people. Fortunately, there are alternatives to narcotics. Some of them help some of the people some of the time, and it is possible to access appropriate information and practice places for free or very low cost. As long as there is no medically noted contraindication or forbidden activity, most people can simply study up on options and choose something for themselves.

Do you have a three-foot square space in your place? If so, you can do a one-five mile walk at home by yourself or with Leslie Sansone. Others also have guided walking workouts that cost little to access. I really do not advocate any particular person or style. I know that many options exist and have helped many people. Some people might consider: Yoga. Pilates. Modified exercises.or "Permission to Nap". There is an actual book called Permission to Nap. Rest goes far with pain and other conditions. Oddly, change of work as a respite from other work helps some people. But all of these require individuals to give themselves permission to do these things.. try new things... make changes. How many people feel or believe that they can make changes? With Yoga, there is an unnecessary barrier to access. Some people believe that there is some evil in it for certain religious folk. But how many people understand that they can perform yoga positions without taking on the mantle of a religious system and without forsaking some western beliefs? All they would be doing is learning how their bodies work. They would work some and rest some, and then their yoga sessions would be over for that day or that week. And, they would still be of whatever faith or non-faith they were when they began this useful work. They would only have entered a time and place where it is okay to work at one's own pace and to make progress with one plan or simply change the positions and have an opportunity to get relief with a new routine. If people can get to the Yoga, the Pilates, or whatever they choose, they have made a decision for the possibility that the first, second, or other approach they try might be beneficial, and they have entered the realm of the possible. That is a beautiful place, even if it takes awhile to work out the kinks and find the individual preferences. The beauty is the individual in their own selected path.

There is so much more.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 03:23PM by Shop-et-al.

I just want to put this out there. Some people can't stop their pain, and you can't tell they are in pain. I am one of them. I had surgery on my spine 15 years ago because my family has early onset spinal stenosis (normally happens to folks in their 70s or later, I had surgery in my early 30s). The surgery was a miracle, but now because of what had to be done to allow me to walk and move I have disks that are "degenerative disc disease". The options are to get another surgery (fusion) and be miserable again in a few years, or get a spinal simulator (which I am in the process of doing), OR take heavy pain meds for the rest of my life just to function.

I get a lot of people job the system for pain meds, I am just saying that I am very careful to look at someone and make a judgement on why they need the pain meds. I hope the rest of you are as well. I look like a perfectly normal 48 year old healthy male, but I move, walk, and can do things more in line with a person in their 70s due to my back. And, for the record, I hate the pain meds. That is the entire reason I am trying an electric shock device that sits inside of me at all times to block the signal to my brain.

God Bless, but be gentle when seeing people asking for pain meds.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 03:32PM by oteixeira.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Underlying the cost of services is the use of services.

I get the whole supply and demand argument, but I am sorry, some of the prices are out of this realm. When one pill costs $1,000 dollars in the US (not an exaggeration, you can Google some articles for examples), and then the same exact pill costs a fraction of that in Canada or oversees, that is just pure profit. Same thing with the EPI pen price increase. There was no sudden increase of demand, they just decided to raise the prices by 1000%.

I am just worried that people jumping on the single payer bandwagon will only exacerbate the problem. It's similar to how when government guaranteed student loans, colleges saw that as a free for all and kept raising their tuition rates. I think we actually agree in that people need to use services judiciously. But on the other side, when you really do need to get health services, they shouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

@iShop123 wrote:

I'd like to see co-pays implemented in the military (socialized) healthcare system. Maybe then people would attempt to care for minor things themselves. The Internet is free and MayoClinic has a lot of information. Our E/R recently went to non-narcotic pain relief; most of the drug seekers take a bus across the county line and now go to another hospital -- they have yet to make the switch.

Personal responsibility seems to be a foreign concept for many.

Any idea how many military families are on food stamps? Perhaps you have never been sick and broke at the same time, without a co-pay in your pocket until payday. Having access to health care, any time, whether some person decides that Dr Google would be a more responsible choice or not, is the very least we can offer military families.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 09:48PM by heartlandcanuck.

Speaking of pain meds: I would refer everyone to a recent column by Susan Estrich. She discusses her experience with chronic pain, non-addictive use of opioids, etc. Pain management is quite the thing...

@iShop123 wrote:

Personal responsibility seems to be a foreign concept for many.

Personal responsibility is a phrase people use when they think that everyone's circumstances are identical to theirs.

I'll give an example. My brother had a heart attack 15 months ago. He eats fairly healthy, runs, and does a decent amount of manual labor around the house or one of his rentals that he's constantly remodeling. Were it not for a family history of heart disease on my father's side he would have been an incredibly low risk for a heart attack. He had a stress test at 50 because of that and the doctor laughed and said come back in 25 years. But he had a heart attack. Come to find out it was likely from sleep apnea that he didn't know he had. Last month his heart doctor told him to stop coming to see him that it was virtually impossible for him to ever have another one. Now, my brother makes half a million a year and has insurance. And if he didn't he could have written a check for $75,000 bill. Now, let's take a similar person who does not have access to decent health care. It could be because they can't afford decent medical insurance, or insurance at all. Or they're served in a rural area without decent care even if they do have insurance. If they didn't have insurance they would be bankrupt. If they did but it was poor or did not have access to good doctors then they likely wouldn't have had a problem with this heart attack, but the sleep apnea likely would never have been diagnosed. Leading them to another heart attack in a few years, and again in another few years. But to you it's all about "personal responsibility" even when there's nothing you did to cause the problem to begin with. And no, this isn't an isolated example. There are thousands upon thousands of situations like this.

If a person has no insurance, he likely doesn't have access to doctor's appointments, but he can walk in to any hospital emergency room (or be taken by EMS), state that he has no insurance, and he will be treated at the emergency room free of charge. Even if the medical condition is not life-threatening or an emergency situation, the hospital is required to provide care.

Six months ago, my brother, who is insured, had a minor motorcycle accident on the way to work. He dislocated his shoulder and had several very bad bloody scrapes. The police had his bike towed and called EMS who took him to the emergency room. Emergency room personnel required his ID, insurance card, and credit card to pay the emergency room co-pay. Favian, an undocumented immigrant, was brought by EMS about the same time after a car accident. The driver was undocumented, uninsured and had no drivers license. He was afraid of arrest and deportation, so he dumped Favian on the road and drove away. Police called EMS. Favian told the Emergency room personnel "undocumented, no ID, no insurance," and he was admitted and got basically the same care as my insured brother.

Both were released about 1:30 pm. I picked my brother up and ended up giving Favian a ride and dropping him on a street corner he said was near home. My brother required no follow-up care, but he continued to receive bills for EMS and hospital services not covered by insurance. Favian paid nothing and was not billed for anything. Even a person with insurance could be bankrupted after a major illness or injury because insurance doesn't cover it all. A person treated without insurance at an emergency facility owes nothing, but he may be limited in his ability to get medical services later. My brother is fine and was back at work 3 days later. Favian is fine and continues to call my brother's cell phone - he hopes to do yard work for my brother and friends and get paid in cash.

Hospitals are required to provide free medical care to anyone who can't afford care. It's one of the reasons for long waits at the emergency rooms in many locations. It's a contributing reason for all the private emergency clinics springing up. And the hospitals are required to provide follow-up care. Where does the money come from? Taxpayers and those with insurance, ultimately. Many hospitals struggle with caring for walk-ins with no insurance, sometimes with very expensive needs.

Interesting article: An undocumented man deported to Mexico against his will after a Chicago hospital spent over a quarter-million dollars on his care but simply could not afford to continue to care for him: [www.chicagotribune.com]


edited to update the amount the Chicago hospital spent before deporting the patient - they spent far more than a quarter million.....they spent $650,000 and an additional $60,000 transporting him back to Mexico.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2019 01:35PM by roflwofl.

@oteixeira wrote:

I just want to put this out there. Some people can't stop their pain, and you can't tell they are in pain.

I get a lot of people job the system for pain meds, I am just saying that I am very careful to look at someone and make a judgement on why they need the pain meds.

This is true. I think the nurses in the ER have a pretty good handle on it, though. Our state is getting prescription drug monitoring program so that people can't go doctor (or ER) hopping.

As far as military people on food stamps, for many it's an entitlement mentality. "Look at all the programs you're eligible for." If you are an E-4 or above, there is absolutely no reason for you to be taking more from the taxpayers.

bgriff, I think those cases are the minority. They certainly are in the military healthcare system. Even then, though, why is it MY responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Among large nation's, the United States (and to a lesser extent Mexico) leads the world in obesity rates. Would we then say that the United States is full of people lacking personal responsibility as opposed to places with higher personal responsibility such as Spain, France, Norway, Russia, Australia, Brazil?

Speaking to our country's obesity problem...when they came out with "low fat", they added sugar to everything making it taste good...hence, obesity and childhood Diabetics .....I literally read every ingredient before buying anything, and packaged goods for working Mothers is full of preservatives adding to poor health. Each individual must be accountable for what they eat, this is a personal problem, nothing else, yes, this is a personal problem...in France portions are smaller, and they use real ingredients as real butter, cream, no additives, and eat less fast food which leads to heart problems and who knows where this meat comes from. Expecting others to care about our health is stupid, and leads to poor health. Aging does bring on different health issues which I won't get into, but you get the picture.

I know from weight. My weight is always my responsibility. My faulty thyroid, which makes metabolism erratic and thus weight loss and weight maintenance difficult at best, is my responsibility. It is my responsibility to determine whether family eating styles from childhood, which were my default choices because I was just a kid, are appropriate for me now or not.

I know from getting older. Most of what I know is this: I am myself and I really do not care about other people's opinions of me. I know that being size 18-16-14 (depending on the vanity sizing and my willingness to pay for it) is a monumental achievement, even though some people have glared, jeered, and given the evil eye to my size. I have to forgive them because they do not know what they are doing. I choose to wonder if their beings, which are filled to overflowing with hatred, are at greater risk of catastrophe in the long run than I am because of a challenged thyroid and difficulty with size management. If nothing else, there is plenty of curvaceousness to love. Hmm.

Food deserts are very common in poor neighborhoods. The lack of availability of food to poor people is NOT a personal responsibility problem, it is a corporate and government problem. In France and Europe, the countries actively ban and suppress processed foods. Those actions are not personal actions, it is their society and government.

Bernie Sanders and the other potential candidates are referenced for upcoming US elections. What happens in other countries may or may not be relevant to or a good idea for the US.

As a US citizen, I cannot blame any other person for my food choices or those my parents made for me when I was a kid.

After childhood, most people in the United States have a choice: continue in the same vein or do something else.(Some people remain in a child state, and they are at the mercy of their feeders.)

Before you tell me nyah, nyah, nyah, please know that I know of what I speak. I have learned from people who stretched a buck into nutrition, into savings, and into goal accomplishment. I also have observed people who did nothing with their buck. They got no bang for their buck. The monetary amount was the same. The outcomes were different. It was always the individual decision to use the money in some way. Some ways are more profitable than others.

But we were talking about food. As it turns out, it is possible to stretch the food budget and get some nutrition bang for the buck. Some people come to this naturally, and they can make a meal out of seemingly nothing. They have a gift of creation? Of administration? Of something, for sure. The rest of us might need a little prompting-- not from the expensive foodie part of the world-- but from the budget-minded food production part of the world. Anyone can search for this information and find numerous recipes, nutrition content blurbs, and cost estimates. Because food costs have risen, the published costs of recipes might have increased since the publication dates. That is the only caution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2019 12:34PM by Shop-et-al.